The appellant, despite arguing separate legal identity, failed to establish independence from a related enterprise; provisional concessions can be revoked without prior notice when terms are violated.

J U D G M E N T

This Appeal is directed against judgment and decree passed in Appeal Suit No.143 of 1999 by the Principal District Judge, Dindigul District, reversing the judgment and decree passed by the District Munsiff cum Judicial Magistrate, Vedasandur, in O.S.No.277 of 1996.

2. The appellant is the plaintiff, and the respondents are the defendants in the suit. The plaintiff instituted the suit in O.S.No.277 of 1996 for a declaration that the plaintiff's firm is an independent and separate unit entitled to the tariff concession as provided under Section 4 of the Tamil Nadu Division of Tariff Rates and Supply of Electrical Energy Act of 1978, along with a consequential relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their subordinates, servants, and agents from collecting the concession tariff as arrears and disconnecting the service connection No.00476 of the plaintiff. For convenience, the parties will be referred to according to their litigative status before the trial court.

3. The short facts of the plaintiff are as follows:

The plaintiff is a partnership firm engaged in doubling cotton yarn and reeling on a job work basis. The plaintiff initially availed a tariff concession based on a letter dated 23.07.1985 for a period of five years. Subsequently, the defendant sent a letter dated 29.08.1990, asking the plaintiff to clarify whether they had any other units by 06.10.1990. The plaintiff responded on 03.04.1991, stating that the other units mentioned had nothing to do with the plaintiff- M/s.R.V.S. Textiles. Later, by communication dated 01.06.1992, the second defendant informed the plaintiff that they were not eligible for any tariff concession, and consequently, the concession previously granted was withdrawn. The plaintiff was then asked to pay Rs. 9,12,887/- for the withdrawal of the concession. Hence, the plaintiff instituted the suit.

4. The suit was resisted by the defendants, inter alia contending that the plaintiff had been the Managing Director of M/s.Embee Textiles Private Limited, for which HT supply was effected on 20.02.1980. This industry had already availed new industry tariff and backward area concessions for five years, from 27.02.1980 to 26.02.1985. The defendants stated that the plaintiff had also started two other industries, M/s.R.V.S. Textiles and M/s.Rathinavel Subramaniam Textiles Private Limited, in 1985 and 1989, respectively. The defendants further claimed that the plaintiff obtained two industrial licenses from the Deputy Inspector of Factories in Madurai as Unit No.1 and Unit No.2, and started M/s.R.V.S. Textiles under the license of Unit No.2 in 1985, with the plaintiff serving as the Managing Director. The three industries are situated in the same location, namely, Karur Road, N. Pararipatti Post, Dindigul. The tariff notification states that the tariff concession is applicable only once to a consumer for a new industrial undertaking and will not be available for any subsequent expansion or diversification of production. If a consumer starts a mill for the manufacture of the same product, the branch mill is not eligible for concession. Therefore, the Board held that the plaintiff's industry is not eligible for any concession for the second time, as it is considered a branch unit of M/s. Embee Textiles. It is further stated that the plaintiff's company is a doubling unit of cotton yarn, while M/s. Embee Textiles Private Limited produces spinning cotton yarn. Both industries are located on the same premises. Since the plaintiff is the Managing Partner/Director of both industries, there is no doubt that M/s.R.V.S. Tex